Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  April 18, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT

1:00 am
1:01 am
1:02 am
1:03 am
1:04 am
1:05 am
1:06 am
1:07 am
1:08 am
1:09 am
1:10 am
1:11 am
1:12 am
1:13 am
1:14 am
1:15 am
1:16 am
1:17 am
1:18 am
1:19 am
1:20 am
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
1:25 am
1:26 am
1:27 am
1:28 am
screeria -- nigeria. - i may
1:29 am
1:30 am
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
1:36 am
1:37 am
consume. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, when i was a boy my father used to point out to me that there were certain moments, certain events that not only define perhaps a community or a generation but
1:38 am
leave an indelible mark on a person. he referenced me to go speak to my grandparents about where they were when the news came that pearl harbor had been bombed and i can remember my grandfather lucas describing the exact field, the exact row that he was picking cotton in in december of 1941 when one of the neighbors stopped and said have you heard? my father could tell you exactly the moment walking down the street in elk city, oklahoma when he walked up to a crowd staring into a store selling televisions because everyone's mouth was down, everyone was aghast of the news in dallas. in many ways, the experience of two minutes after 9:00 a.m. on april 19, 1995, has had the
1:39 am
same mark and the same effect on not only myself, my colleagues in this delegation but our communities in the country. like my grandfather remembering the moment that he found out about pearl harbor, my father the moment he understood that president kennedy had been assassinated, i'll never forget sitting with the oklahoma delegation waiting to give testimony in a brac hearing in dallas when a reporter taffed tapped me on the shoulder, a reporter i'd known for some time and he said, we have a report that there's been an explosion at the federal building in oklahoma city. they say the building is gone. your district office is in one of those federal buildings in downtown oklahoma city. which building are your people in? a moment that i'll never forget.
1:40 am
the delegation got up and in mass we rushed out into the lobby and there on the television monitors was the building that we recognized as the shell of the measureo building. it literally was gone. -- shell of the murrow building. it literally was gone. my folks were spare but 168 of our good fellow citizens in oklahoma city that day were not. and this sunday morning we will gather to remember that event 20 years ago. an event that's changed us all forever. i'm proud of my oklahoma delegation here today because we still work now as we did 20 years ago to address those issues. and i'll yield to one of my colleagues from oklahoma who was at that time secretary of state for the state of oklahoma
1:41 am
, one of the folks in the inner circle in governor keating's administration as state government responded to something that no one could have expected. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cole: i thank my friend for yielding. and i thank you for having this extraordinary moment not only for our state and for what was then his district but i think for americans every where, 20 years ago on april 19 of 1995 we saw a domestic tragedy of historic proportions. it's still the largest single act of domestic terrorism in american history. and it was totally unexpected totally unanticipated and extraordinarily devastating to the people involved and i think to the country as a whole.
1:42 am
but sometimes out of a tragedy of that proportion a triumph emerges and that certainly what occurred in oklahoma city on april 19, 1995, and the days that followed. our first thoughts on the 20th anniversary is always of the victims. the 168 lives that were lost, 19 of them children unknowing that disaster was about to overtake them. and of the many dozens who were wounded severely and have still to this daycarey those injuries with them. and then next we think always of the first responders, particularly the oklahoma city fire and police officers that immediately rushed to the scene, the surrounding fire and police departments that were rapidly mobilized to assist them the oklahoma national guard that was there within a matter of hours but frankly rescue teams from all across the united states of america
1:43 am
who immediately moved in our direction to help our people. and i think of the people of oklahoma next who stunned but rallied enormously with enormous speed and with great courage try and support each and every way they could the folks that -- whose lives had been lost and the people that were still in danger. i still remember that day at the governor's office. at the end of the day 2:00 in the morning, driving from the capital toward my home in moore oklahoma, and seeing a line of people outside the blood center at 2:00 in the morning still there and wanting to help and be supportive in whatever way that they could. but we were really, really blessed at that particular moment in the history of our state and in the history of our country with extraordinary
1:44 am
leadership. i think first always because i worked for governor keating as his secretary of state the manner in which he responded. like my friend, mr. lucas, i heard about this totally unexpectedly. i was literally walking into the capitol at 9:02 in a tunnel and felt a little shutter. walked into my office and i got a -- my secretary immediately walked in and said your wife is on the phone. she was working two blocks away from the site of the bombing. she was on the 18th floor of a building. she said i don't know what's happened but i'm looking down i can see an enormous smoke and explosion occurred and there are hundreds of people on the street fleeing from this disaster. my office was below the governor's office on the first floor of the capitol and i went up -- and this was maybe eight minutes into the event -- and walked in because i knew the governor would be focused on
1:45 am
this, obviously and he was standing in the pressroom immediately to the right as you walk in and at that time there were already helicopters in the air and on the scene we were seeing horrific sights and the speculation immediately it was some sort of natural gas explosion. well, frank keating, our governor, was also a former f.b.i. agent who had been trained in investigating terrorism in the 1960's. former tulsa prosecutor. former u.s. attorney. former associate attorney general of the united states. and he knew what he was looking at and he immediately looked at that television set, i'll never forget what he said, that is not a natural gas explosion. that's a car bomb of some sort. he knew instantly what he was dealing with. and on that day and in the subsequent days he led with extraordinary distinction in mobilizing resources leading from the front, being on the front line, was an exceptional
1:46 am
act of public leadership fran official who was less than 100 days into his -- from an official who was less than 100 days into his term. equally impressive was the leadership of his wife, our first laidy kathy keating. most of america knows of the memorial service that took place on sunday after the disaster. i remember the night after the disaster being at the governor's mansion and we were still -- we didn't know how many people had been lost. we didn't know if there were survivors still in the building. there were search teams. we were dealing with a disaster of national -- really, international proportions and kathy keating came to the meeting and said we need to have some sort of service to memorialize the people that had been lost. people are grieving and they want to participate. and i remember thinking at the time, my goodness, how in the world can we ever pull this off? we're dealing with more in an we can deal with, let alone organizing something like that.
1:47 am
and yet -- and i made that point. and she said, don't worry. i will take over. and she did. and america -- not just oklahoma city and oklahoma -- were given a moment to mourn, a moment that attracted the president of the united states. billy graham. a national audience and thousands of oklahomans who simply wanted to get together and pay tribute to those who had lost their lives. it was an exceptional act of public leadership on her part. and the two of them set up a foundation to take care of the educational needs of anyone who had lost a parent, let alone two parents, in the course of that. and that institution still functions till this day. again exceptional leadership. and we've had other moments of tragedy in our country like 9/11 and just as rudy giuliani was, quote, america's mayor on that day, ron norig in oklahoma
1:48 am
was america's day. it was an amazing performance as i got together his police and his firefighters and was immediately on the scene and one of the great public servants that i've ever seen. and i would be remiss not to mention my friend behind me, mr. lucas, as he alluded to in his remarks that was his district office, one building over. that was a place where he was in and out of a lot in the federal building and my task as secretary of state signed by -- assigned by the governor was to work in weab to try to coordinate with the federal government a long-term rebuilding effort. nobody did more to rebuild oklahoma city than frank lucas. . this was not a natural disaster, this was literally an attack on
1:49 am
a federal facility in oklahoma city with a unique federal responsibility. those are all things that frank lucas got done not just for the people of his district but the people of our state. frankly, in that he set some precedents that served the people from new york on 9/11 awfully well in addition. the last person i want to mention is the president of the united states at the time. i'm a pretty good republican and i can't say i voted for bill clinton. but i was very glad he was president of the united states at that moment. nobody helped us more. i will never forget 1:00 in the afternoon, day of disaster, we had moved the governor to a civil defense facility below ground. at the capitol. he was directing affairs there. we got a call from the president of the united states. i did not know it at the time, but they, frank keating and bill clinton had actually gone to school together. they went to georgetown together. frank keating was president of the college -- student body when
1:50 am
bill clinton was president of the sophomore class. they knew one another. first thing the president asked was, governor do you have any idea who is responsible for this? there were all sorts of wild reports on television, a lot of speculation. and the governor being a law enforcement professional immediately responded, mr. president, we have no idea. we do not know who did this. i know you're hearing foreign terrorists, all sorts of things. we don't know yet. it's too chaotic for us to know. president clinton at that point said something that really struck me and struck me more later. he said, well, i hope it wasn't a foreign national. i remember it being almost shocked you would hope that an american had done something thisfall. but then he added profetically as it turned out several years later because if it was we'll be at war someplace in the world within six months. he was absolutely right. he too, understood the dimensions of the tradgedy. in the days ahead, everything --
1:51 am
tragedy. in the days ahead, everything we asked for and all the resources and compassion that a great people like the united states of america and its citizens can muster was immediately at our disposal. i remember president clinton when we announced we were doing the ceremony, discreetly was approached by a member in his administration, you know, the president would like to be here but we certainly don't want to be here if it's inappropriate. and i said look, i have to go clear that with the governor, but i can tell you i know what frank keating's response is going to be. of course we would welcome the president of the united states. he did, indeed, come. he not only helpeds through -- helped us through it, he helped us emotionally through it. as did the first lady, hillary rodham clinton at the time. also made that journey. and was there to help and comfort people. we may have our political differences from time to time as
1:52 am
americans. but in times of tragedy, we stick together. we come together. we pull together and work to help one another. certainly president clinton did that. finally, let me just make this observation. i want -- and this expression of gratitude. i want to use this occasion to thank the millions and millions of americans who responded with their prayers, with their help, the rescue workers that came, the donations that flowed in from all across the country to help the victims and the families of the victims. that came, frankly from around the world. because we had international help as well. and i want to remind people that whenever they lose faith in the united states of america, or just the shear decency of people , think of the oklahoma city bombing. think of the magnificent
1:53 am
performance of this country, not just of the people on the scene. but of the support this country directed toward its fellow citizens in a time of difficulty. and of the many prayers and expressions of good will and condolence from around the world as people rallied in the face of what was unspeakable act of terror. we had our moment of tragedy, but we have had 20 years of triumph since then. that triumph's not just the try um of the of the -- triumph of the people of oklahoma city, but it's an american triumph and human triumph of enormous dimensions and great consequence . mr. lucas: thank you, congressman cole. i certainly want to acknowledge congressman mullin and congressman bridenstine. now, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to conclude to
1:54 am
congressman russell, who has the responsibility of representing that site in the fifth district of oklahoma to conclude with a few comments. congressman russell. congressman russell: thank you, congressman lucas, and to my friends and colleagues. thank you, mr. speaker. on april 19, 1995 i was defending my country as an officer in the united states army. we were preparing as warriors to defend our country never imagining that an attack would occur in our hometown. among the 168 people that were killed, and the 689 nonfatal fatalities the buildings that were destroyed or damaged in a 16-block radius, the $652 million worth of damage that was
1:55 am
caused in my hometown there were a number of brother warriors and sister warriors that were defending their country at their duty stations at the recruiting depots that were contained in the federal building. victoria master sergeant in the united states army. ben min -- benjamin davis a sarent in the united states marine corps. akisha, airman first class in the united states air force. randolph guzman, captain in the united states marine corps. cart any mccraven, an airman first class in the united states air force. and lola bolden, a sergeant first class in the united states army. never imagining that in their recruiting duties in oklahoma city that they would give their lives in defense of their country. and to my colleagues and to
1:56 am
congressman lucas, i would ask that we could observe a moment of silence in memory to all the 168 americans, oklahomans friends, that were killed in this despicable act of terror on our domestic shores. and to all of those that carry the scars and injuries to this day if we could observe a brief moment of silence. i thank my colleague and friend, congressman lucas, and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back to my colleague. mr. lucas: mr. speaker there's no way that the oklahoma delegation can express our thanks to the country for the help over the last 20 years.
1:57 am
but with this moment of silence just now we ask that everyone, two minutes after 9:00 central time this sunday morning think about those 168 souls those killed, and those who survived
1:58 am
1:59 am
2:00 am
fold by a house oversight subcommittee hearing on how employees view the agencies they work for. the u.s. becomes chair of the arctic council next week at its meeting in canada. the center for strategic and international studies held a meeting today. this event began with alaska senator lisa murkowski who serves as chair of energy and natural resources committee. she talked about energy development in the arctic and
2:01 am
how the region vital to u.s. security. this is 50 minutes. >> good morning everyone. welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. my name is heather conley, senior vice president for europe, eurasia and the arctic. i'm extremely proud that the arctic is in my formal title. we here at csis in our program have a tradition. we host a public conversation just a few days before an arctic council ministerial. so we have had in 2011 the road to nuke. in 2013, the road to karuna. today, we have the road to iqaluit. senator murkowski says it is also said iqaluit. so iqaluit or iqaluit, but we're off to nunavit next week. and i could think of no more perfect speaker to offer some reflections just eight days before the united states assumes the arctic council chairmanship
2:02 am
than a person who has been in nuke and karuna participating as part of the u.s. delegation to speak with us and that is senator lisa murkowski. chairwoman of the senate committee of energy and natural resources. she serves as a member of the senate health education, labor and pensions committee as well as the senate indian affairs committee. so, senator murkowski, you could not be better placed to help give us these insights. senator murkowski, i think of you as one of the key leaders, people seek you out to hear your thoughts on u.s. policy toward the arctic. you fearlessly hold hearings when the u.s. government shuts down, keeping that focus on the arctic. you are someone who encourages the administration to do more and applause them when they do, yet you are very clear in your analysis when you -- and
2:03 am
criticism when you think the u.s. administration has not quite made the mark. but clearly you are tirelessly working with your other senate colleagues to tell them why the arctic matters to them. we're so delighted the senate now has an arctic working group with you and senator king from maine providing that leadership. you often talk about the arctic opportunity, economics, scientific, environmental, and national security opportunity. and clearly next week the united states has an extraordinary opportunity to show leadership in the arctic. so with your applause, will you please join me in welcoming senator murkowski to the podium. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. heather, thank you. and good morning to you all. it is always a good morning when we can gather together to talk about places of great opportunity. and i can think of no other
2:04 am
place on planet earth where we have more opportunity than the arctic. as was mentioned, and as we all know, those that are focused on the area of opportunity, next week, a week from today, the united states will assume the chair of the arctic council for the next two years now. this is truly an exciting opportunity for us. for those of us who have been pushing for some time now to really place the arctic in a space of greater national priority. certainly heather, those of you here at csis have embraced that position. and i really thank you for your continued interest, the advocacy on the arctic issues. not only today, but in the years leading up. but your presence today, those
2:05 am
of you who have joined us, those who are joining by the internet, you're showing your interest again in a topic that is really quite keen right now. i don't -- i probably don't need to impress upon you why the arctic matters to the united states. i would suggest to you that perhaps the biggest challenge that we face right now on arctic policy is not with other members of the arctic council, including russia. it is not with the rest of the international community, which is taking a very interested focus on the far north. it is not with the permanent participant groups, representing the indigenous peoples of the arctic, who are truly impacted more so than anyone else by the decisions of the arctic nations. but i would suggest to you that the biggest challenge for the
2:06 am
united states is the united states itself. we face hurdles both at a public interest level and a government policy level. from the public interest perspective, i think it is a fair question to ask why should -- why should somebody from alabama or from arizona care about the arctic? and i suppose there could be those that would say, well, why should alaskans care about policies that relate to using corn for ethanol or the security of our southwest border. i would argue back these are all national priorities, national impacts. well, we know, we repeat it all the time, we are an arctic nation, because of alaska. but every state, every state in our union has some kind of a
2:07 am
stake in the arctic. whether it is from trade, nearly 20% of the u.s. exports go to the seven other arctic nations, that's significant. we have the research activity, the national science foundation has provided arctic research grants to entities based in 44 different states, plus the district of columbia. i remember having a conversation with my colleague from iowa, some years ago, and it was kind of a trick question to him, about arctic and arctic policy. i was able to remind him that in one of his iowa state institutions they host an arctic research program there, kind of caught him by surprise. but that's important that they recognize their connection. but there is also the national security matters, the arctic touches every corner. the arctic touches every corner
2:08 am
of our nation. and we must remind everybody of this. from a security perspective, the arctic is centrally located for multiple areas of operation, from the asia pacific and north american to europe and to russia. our ability to reach each area via the arctic significantly reduces response times with increased activity in the arctic in both commercial and military levels, our ability to project power and have rapid response capability in the region is of even greater importance. of course, from an economic standpoint, we talk about the shipping routes and the advantages of shorter shipping routes between europe and asia or the west coast, with the potential to cut seemingly 12 to 15 days off of transit schedules, allowing for quicker
2:09 am
delivery of goods, lower costs to consumers for all americans. so, again, a benefit regardless of where you come from in the country. our natural resource potential, we talked about it a lot in alaska. but we recognize that the -- that the resource potential in the arctic is very, very high. usgs estimates roughly 412 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalent natural gas lies there in the arctic. the dredge hauls we have seen suggest high concentration of critical and strategic elements like rare earth elements. our neighbors, russia to the west, canada to the east, they continue with very, very purposeful national plans, combined with state interests to develop arctic resources and really pushing to advance commerce in the north. and their plans are helping to create jobs. we're seeing economic growth in areas that have historically
2:10 am
faced extraordinary challenges. even the non-arctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice. i think this is one area that grabs the attention of folks here at home because they're looking at these non-arctic nations and saying, well what interest does india have here? and they should be scratching their heads about that. they should be asking that question. because if there is an interest, from non-arctic nations, why here in this country are we not looking with greater interest? but when you think about the non-arctic nations, they're reaping the transit benefits. they are looking to possibly move forward with resource extraction or exploration and development activities.
2:11 am
and so when you think about the u.s. position and whether we engage or whether we don't engage, we need to appreciate that this level of activity is going to continue whether the united states engages or not. increased access in the arctic also means enhanced scientific opportunities to better understand the region, its environment, its ecosystem, and how the arctic might impact other areas of a nation and the world. we talk about maintaining the arctic as a zone of peace to allow for greater international cooperation and coordination in a harsh environment that requires specialized skill and equipment. so areas that we can be collaborating and working together are important. so, really, regardless of where you live in this country or what your interests may be, there is a nexus. there is a connection out there to the arctic that explains why our arctic priorities should matter to the entire country.
2:12 am
but our challenge here is enabling this non-alaska portion of the arctic to recognize that nexus. so heather mentioned that senator king and i have joined together. we're kind of book ending the country between alaska and maine. we formed a senate arctic caucus, not only to look at our national arctic policies and priorities, but really to place a greater focus on each individual state and how it is connected to the arctic. we think this is something that other colleagues can take home and use to highlight our arctic opportunities with individuals and communities. so when we sent letters of invitation to the other members, it was not just let's focus on arctic together, it was accompanied with a white paper
2:13 am
that was put together by a great arctic intern, i'm going to do a shout out to kyle who has done great work for us, but reminding the senators from alabama for instance that 25% of alabama's total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. to my colleague john mccain who has joined the arctic caucus because he saw that in his state of arizona 16% of total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. and so, again, making -- making that connection there so the arctic is not so remote, so far away. now we all recognize the role that admiral pap assumed as the united states special
2:14 am
representative for the arctic. i think senator kerry selected an individual who's obviously very knowledgeable about the region and someone who can bring that knowledge to the rest of the country. but he can't do it alone. so how we can work together not only support his role, but ways to develop interest in and greater awareness in the arctic is something that i challenge each of us to do. one suggestion i have this morning and i'll suggest next week in iqaluit is to make the -- or allow the arctic economic council a greater opportunity for some visibility. take the aic on a road tour. now, we know in this room that the arctic economic council is a
2:15 am
forum formed by the arctic council to bring businesses together with arctic communities, to promote greater economic investment. but i think it would be important for the aec to visit throughout the country, go to the different states, go to the city chamber of commerce, promote investment in arctic communities for economic development and at the same time what you're doing is raising the collective knowledge awareness and interest in the arctic. so this suggestion of bringing this to a higher level by utilizing the aec brings me to the second hurdle, that's the federal government's arctic policy goals and agenda for the arctic council chairmanship in the next couple of years. i would suggest the effort at this point in time by our
2:16 am
government in terms of where we are in assuming this chairmanship position is incomplete. and heather noted that i have been quick to applaud the administration when i think things are moving as they should. but i'm here to offer what i hope is constructive criticism when we have -- we have not yet done what we need to do in these arenas. and i would hope if you get nothing else from my remarks this morning that you will take away, that you will remember the people who live in the arctic. this must be a priority for us as an arctic nation. now, for many who have never seen the arctic, many non-arctic
2:17 am
residents, they view the arctic as this pristine untouched environment. i described it as something akin to a snow globe that sits on the shelf and it is pretty and it is contained and it always looks the same. and please don't touch it. please don't shake it up. but our arctic is an area that is home to nearly 4 million people. humans have been living and hunting and working there for thousands of years. they have been harvesting the natural resources of the region. they have been developing the land. they live and work and raise their families there. just yesterday i had an opportunity to see a series of advertisements, the corporation that sits up in the north slope area. stunning commercials about i am
2:18 am
a -- and the one that is probably most powerful is a series of pictures of a whaling captain who also happens to be the ceo of this native corporation, moving from shots of him out on the ice looking as traditional and ancient as any inupiat might and the next shot of him in his office looking just like those of you in suits and ties and leather shoes. and it speaks -- it speaks to the reality of the people of the arctic today. and so we must always remember the people. a focus on climate change, its impact on the arctic and how to adapt to a changing environment is absolutely warranted.
2:19 am
i don't have concern with that. but it cannot be our sole and singular focus. and it cannot be held over or held against the people of the arctic. it should not be used as an excuse to prevent those who live in the arctic from developing the resources available to them in order to create a better standard of living. my objection and the objection of many who live in alaska, is that this administration has placed climate change policy goals above everything else, including the welfare of those who live in the arctic. it was just about a month ago, a little over a month ago, we had a hearing before the senate energy and natural resources committee, it was a hearing specific to the arctic, the first one we had in the senate, some members of the committee commented on what they perceived to be the irony of alaska's
2:20 am
strong support for oil and gas development, while noting the impact -- the true impact climate changes, having on our states, our communities and our people. they suggested that alaskans should be leaders in moving our country away from fossil fuels. well, one of the witnesses we had at that hearing was charlotte brower, an eskimo, she's the mayor of the borough, she's the wife of a whaling captain, she's got six kids. she's a grandmother of 25. and as the mayor testified, oil development on alaska's north slope brought 200 years worth of economic development and advancement in a period of roughly 30 years. let me repeat that. 200 years worth of advancement in 30 years' time.
2:21 am
pretty remarkable. also very challenging. but as a result of responsible resource development, more people on the north slope of alaska now have access to medical clinics that could provide care for themselves, their loved ones. they have improved telecommunications. and search and rescue equipment for hunting parties that previously would have simply disappeared on the ice, never to be heard from again. they have access to other modern amenities that we certainly take for granted, like a simple flush toilet. so those who oppose resource development, you've got to look at what -- what the situation is for those again who have lived and worked and raised their families in this area for thousands of years. those who would oppose resource development would prefer the
2:22 am
inupiat eskimo remain using whale oil for heat instead of using the resources of the region to advance their quality of life. and the mayor reminded us that it was just a few decades ago where there was no natural gas to heat their home. where truly it was a time when you collected the drift wood that would come down the river for heat, for your home. there is some pretty powerful stories from some people who are still in leadership positions today who describe that the reason that they wanted to go to school in the morning was not eager for the education
2:23 am
necessarily, but because the school was the only place where there was heat. you're from barrow, alaska, you're going to go to school. there is no irony in the people in the arctic benefiting from the economic opportunities available in their region. there is an irony in deliberating limiting their economic future while claiming now it is for their own good and somehow in their best interests. now, administration officials have said that the united states arctic council agenda found the sweet spot between national security and environmental goals. what is missing, i believe, from the equation, are the views of those who actually live in the arctic like mayor brower. what is missing are the economic development opportunities that would actually benefit those who live and work and raise their
2:24 am
families in the arctic. and a prime example of the disconnect that occurs when policy is being driven from thousands of miles away here in washington, d.c., we saw it play out at an event last september entitled passing the arctic council torch, also sponsored by csis, but every speaker who came from an arctic location, whether it was from alaska or the yukon territory, the northwest territory, nunavit, they praised the development for the people of the north. all of them spoke about the need for economic opportunities as the priorities for those that live in the arctic. those who came from outside of the arctic, whether from government agencies or universities or elsewhere, they focused their remarks on the need to have a bold, aggressive
2:25 am
agenda on climate change. what we saw there was, i believe, an intent to use the arctic council as a bully pulpit to promote climate change policy goals as if economic activity in the arctic is driving climate change. the contrast was pretty significant. at least for those of us from the arctic here. arctic policy is a difficult balance to achieve as the vision in the arctic varies, depending on who you speak with. but, we must find a better place if the u.s. chairmanship of the arctic council is going to be viewed as a net positive here. the obama administration will be in charge as we assume the chair of the arctic council next week. but it will not be this administration that then hands
2:26 am
the gavel to finland in 2017. we will have a new administration. and given -- given what is coming up and these presidential elections, we're going to see new administration, new cabinet, and potentially different priorities for the arctic. but, really, the only way to have a lasting arctic policy, a policy that goes beyond just the two-year period that we have in front of us, we have to institutionalize this. we have to -- we have to make it a policy that is supported across the aisle and supported across the nation. that's what will make it enduring. and so i am challenging not only this administration, but i'm challenging people around the country. let's view this opportunity to
2:27 am
chair the arctic council, to lead on a vision for the arctic that is enduring and it is truly for the benefit of all in this country. those who recognize that we are an arctic nation, and those who are just beginning to discover the excitement and the opportunity that we hold as an arctic nation. with that, i thank you for the opportunity to be with you. i look forward to some questions in a bit. [ applause ] >> over here? thank you. >> perfect. >> senator murkowski, thank you so much. that was wonderful address. and i love that national prioritization. as we heard make the arctic council a national imperative.
2:28 am
i want to give you a warmup, ask you one or two questions that are on my mind and as i look across this room, there is so much incredible arctic experience, knowledge, expertise, i'll unleash the audience on you for the remaining minutes that we have with you. my first question deals with u.s. preparedness for arctic development. so earlier this week i believe the comment out of the coast guard had made a statement that the united states is a -- is a bystander in the arctic. you and representative don young had really tough hearings with coast guard officials saying where is the plan, where is the readiness? i think there has been discussion of you and legislation on infrastructure, some infrastructure legislation. it is not just icebreakers which we tend to fixate on but deep water ports, aviation assets it is maritime domain awareness. even if we, the united states,
2:29 am
decides not to develop, others are, will have increased shipping, will have increased human activity. what is your sense of where the -- where we need to be and the budget? that's the hard part. how are we going to pay for this? >> well, i have expressed concerns and i will continue to express concerns about our readiness. now, i don't fault the coast the coast guard gets it. they know that we are lacking in deep water ports. they know that we have not sufficiently charted our arctic waters. they know that we need more navigational aids. they know that the communication gaps that exist up there must be addressed. and i think that they are internally -- they're quite concerned because they know where their budget is. we talk about an icebreaker. if coast guard were to take that out of their budget, they would have literally nothing for
2:30 am
anything else. so when we look at the infrastructure and the infrastructure needs in the arctic, this is not just the responsibility of the coast guard who is tasked with ensuring that the safety in our arctic areas. this is, again, a national priority. this needs to involve multiagencies. it needs to involve everybody within the department of defense. it needs to involve the agencies within the department of interior. it needs to involve homeland security, obviously, but, again, we have got to kind of get out of this little silo that the arctic is your responsibility. part of what we have been dealing with to this point in time is this mind set that anything that has to do with the arctic is an alaskan earmark. it is not going to happen if it
2:31 am
is viewed that way. alaskans don't view it that way. and neither should anyone else in the country. and certainly not those in the administration. so i have been pressing cabinet members, when they come before the committees, whether it is my appropriations subcommittee that i'm on, or energy or wherever, where, in this budget, are we demonstrating that there is a priority? because all of the agencies have been tasked to come up with your strategic plan. they probably spent more money coming up with strategic plans that go sit on a shelf than coming together to collaborate in defining how we're going to accomplish these things. we have known for years now that we were going to be assuming the chair next week. putting together strategic plan is one thing. but making sure that we have demonstrated that priority by
2:32 am
placing it within the budget, initiatives within the budget, that's where you demonstrate your commitment. and we haven't seen that yet. >> so we hosted dr. john holdron here in january, early february, to talk about the creation of the new -- the executive order that the white house released on creating this arctic executive steering committee, which he chairs. and i asked a very similar question, where is the budget? lots of strategies, but in the small print, each agency has to use within its existing re sources, which means -- >> take it from a pot that you're already struggling to address the needs within your department. so tell me who is going to say, okay, we're going to put all these other things, all these other responsiblities we had and we'll move the arctic to the top. >> you think this new steering group, the deputy cabinet level, subcabinet level, do you think
2:33 am
that could provide that rigor to say, you know what, omb, we're going to fund this or you're in a wait and see mood. >> i'm from missouri. >> show me. >> don't tell alaskans i said i'm from missouri. let's move out to the geopolitical, geostrategic environment. this week we heard from nordic ministers that characterized russia as the greatest threat to europe's security, particularly northern europe security. at the same time we heard that from some of our own military leaders as well.
2:34 am
general hodges, others at the same time we had the senior state department official that is very engaged on the arctic saying russia is a partner. i am struggling with the concept of partner, yet i'm seeing extraordinary aggressive actions, missing civilian airliners, a lot of military exercises in the arctic. i'm getting repeated calls. maybe you can help me how you answer this question by reporters saying is this a new cold war, what are we seeing, what do we understand? i'm growing increasingly concerned. the foreign minister will not be at the iqaluit ministerial. they're sending a natural resources and environment minister. what signals is moscow sending us right now on the arctic? >> well, i, for one, perhaps take the signal of aircraft in areas that are unexpected and unwelcomed and very aggressive. i take that as a pretty strong signal that causes me great concern. there is a -- there is a pushing of the envelope here with russia. that if it is not getting the
2:35 am
attention of our leadership here in this country, i'm not quite sure what else we need to do. now, you heard me say today and as i go around the country, that the arctic should be this zone of peace. i absolutely believe that, adhere to it, but i also recognize that within a zone of peace, there is respect that you show for one another. and what we are seeing right now is a -- an aggression in a way that, you know, we're not -- we're not going to make the front page of the news, but we're certainly on a-2 with the aggressive behavior that we're seeing out of russia right now, and it causes me to wonder if they are not taking advantage of the fact that we have said, we
2:36 am
want to be your friend. we want to be your partner in all of this. if you want to be a partner, then you behave like one. and you show that level of respect. and that's what we're not seeing right now. so i think that we need to ensure that our signals are equally strong. and we say that's not acceptable. it's not acceptable. and as much as we want to be working together, we want to collaborate on scientific opportunities, we want to collaborate on areas of the environment, let's not say one thing on the one hand and then our actions take us in a different direction. we need to call russia out when russia needs to be called out. >> very strong message. all right, i know the audience
2:37 am
is waiting. we don't have that much time. i would like to collect a few questions if i may and ask our audience to keep them short. if you can introduce yourself, we'll be good. brooks, sometimes speak very directly into that microphone, so thank you, please. >> senator brooks yeager with interior with bruce babbitt. i wanted to compliment you. first of all, and ask one question. i come from the conservation side of the debate, probably, afar as that goes. on the other hand, i spent a lot of time up north and agree with 90% of what you said about the benefits that oil development has provided to towns like barrow and wainwright and the need that they have of continued money to enter into the commercial world economy and be part of something while protecting their subsistence and
2:38 am
traditional ways of life. so grant -- and i wanted to congratulate you also on talking about the realities of the budget. having been in government, it is time for conferences where the agencies come forward and say pretty things to end and for omb to be at the table saying how much money they're going to pony up for what is a white house priority. it is or it isn't. you can't just add it on top of the debt that the agency is already struggling with. that won't work. i agree with you entirely. question is the following. the thrust of your remarks and substance is there is the debate between those who are concerned mostly with climate change and with the natural resource health of the arctic, and those concerned with the development of the people of the arctic. i wonder if it there isn't a space somewhere in between where one can be concerned with both. specifically that development can occur in some places and not in others and in a
2:39 am
discriminating way rather than an overwhelming way. then the question is, if you're mostly concerned about the human development of the arctic communities, how do you make sure that the money from development doesn't shoot straight to houston? and actually some of it stays in the arctic? it is nice to benefit from royalties. that's not enough honestly. how about jobs for the people up there. what do you do -- what is your program about that? >> thank you. i think i saw -- we have caitlin right there. >> caitlin, rule of law committee for the ocean. i don't have a -- the arctic nations, russia by far has the most integrated development plan. they have gone through their budgets for different sectoral
2:40 am
plans, pulled out the arctic onces and created an ark arctic commission. is that something we should be trying to work with on economic development -- building a regional arctic economic growth. if we don't do it, i assume some of the port production -- port operation facilities in southeast asia will be in there, so it is not something we can stop by not participating, but it seems like that region is an area that could be separated from the normal moscow/washington tensions we had forever. and have something that focuses more on the back channel for building a partnership in that region of the arctic where we want to see reasonable economic development. the russians want to see economic development and reasonable environmental protection. seems like there is an opportunity to work together there. in spite of the strategic issues that have gone on even after the
2:41 am
cold war. do you think there is an opportunity to build that regional partnership between alaska and the russian far east in spite of the tensions that we have in our more strategic level dialogue? >> we'll take one more. right there, right beside you and we'll let you -- >> you'll remember all the questions. >> i'll do my best. >> following up on mr. yeager's question about where the money is going to come from, to address these challenges, would public private partnerships be an option to consider and how would they be developed? >> wonderful. okay, so we had that -- getting the revenues in, and where is the money and how to keep the administration focused on that, budget, russia, how to find the opportunities. alaska has done extraordinary work on the collaboration and resources and where do they go? >> let me speak to brooks' question first. it is a key one.
2:42 am
we want to ensure that the benefits of development flow to the people that are in the arctic. and i mentioned in my comments the benefit that the -- that barrow, that nuxit, that wainwright have seen with the value of natural gas coming to their community. now, that was a very direct agreement between the producers and the people of those native villages that resource would be made available to you, to them. that was transformative. you talk to the people in barrow, that was transformative.
2:43 am
you know, you've been there. one of the things i believe very strongly, we must incorporate is our ability for increased revenue sharing. i have a revenue sharing measure that directs a portion of the revenues derived from offshore development, for instance, directly to the governmental structures within the north slope that would receive -- that would host the development, but also then return benefit directly to them. i think that has to be a significant and a key piece in ensuring that they receive that financial benefit. you speak very clearly to the reality of the people of the north. they want to ensure that they can be a participant in the cash economy. they want to ensure that they have certain amenities whether it's clean water, sewers or our level of energy coming to them,
2:44 am
but they also want and require that access to the subsistance lifestyle that sustained them for life immemorial, how we ensure that there is a level of development that allows for that benefit, but still provides for a level of management of those resources. this has got to be key, and you suggest that they're -- perhaps there are certain areas that would not be subject to development. i think, in fact, that there has been that discussion and that there is that direction that when the caribou are migrating or when the bowhead are coming up with shell's exploration plan, for instance, they are out of the water when the bowhead are migrating to allow for the whale, captains and their crews to be out and have a successful
2:45 am
hunt. that's -- it's pretty serious the accommodations that go on to provide for that level of subsistence and that must be key. to caitlin's comment about about economic cooperation with russia. i do think there are opportunities where we can be working together whether it's search and rescue capacity or -- kind of establishing these maritime -- i don't know if i want to describe them as a commercial hub, but servicing points, if you will, and having the opportunity to build on -- on the strength that russia will put in place or that we can partner with. i don't think that we should assume that if russia moves
2:46 am
forward that we don't have to and this notion -- that we can sit back and everyone engages and that somehow would reap those benefits. i don't know if that is realistic. while i express my skepticism with what we're seeing with russia right now i do recognize that we have built relationships. we certainly have between alaska and the russians directly as the neighbor there. we can build on it, but i am also very cautious in recognizing that the political tensions that we are experiencing with russia right now perhaps erode a little bit of the desire for greater reliance and cooperation.
2:47 am
i am very cognizant of this. i would like to see a greater collaborative effort, but i think we know whether it's from a research perspective and all of the other arctic nations have been very willing to work with us and russia has been perhaps a little more closed about sharing their data. so we can talk about cooperation, but again, it's got to be a two-way street here. and our final point -- >> the funding again. how does that development go back. private partnership. >> well, i do believe that this is so much a part of our answer is private public partnerships. and last year in the omnibus. no, it was in the word a built, we advanced a measure that would
2:48 am
allow for not necessarily public private, but utilizing our state institutions and in the state of alaska we have the ada, the alaska industrial development authority that would allow for partnerships that could help build out whether it is a deep water port or other infrastructure there that i think is an important step we did not advance the public private partnership concept because there were some that were a little anxious about what happens if you have an oil company that would come in and want to do that private partnership. i'm looking at it and saying if we are building out an infrastructure project that is going to benefit the region, let's talk about this, so i think this is an opportunity for
2:49 am
us, particularly as we face the reality of budgets that do not allow the for the level of commitment to the arctic region that i think we need to address. so i think that that is a positive avenue to explore, and i think that we should be doing more in that area. >> senator murkowski, thank you so much. this was so timely. we wish you very safe travels next week as part of the delegation. we look forward to seeing the outcome of the canadian chairmanship and the arctic economic council which is a major deliverable to the chairmanship and then the torch is passed to us and we look forward to the hearings and the leadership and guidance that you will provide. please join me in thanking senator murkowski for being with us. [ applause ] >> thank you. [ applause ]
2:50 am
>> because we have more to come, [ applause ] because we have more to come, one thing, go refresh your coffee. we have a talk about economic and energy development. >> can i put in one final plug before people stand? >> yes. sorry. >> you can see i get very energized and animated about arctic opportunities, but what i am finding exciting is what is happening with young people and their interest in the arctic. in my senate office the enthusiasm for these issues is almost infectious and what i have seen i have a couple of young people here in the audience today that have gone on to law school to focus specifically on the arctic. i've got one who is a student at georgetown who has been helping
2:51 am
me in his spare time because he is so focused on the arctic. and i really do feel that when our young people view this as their future, they're going to drag the rest of us along, so to the young people out there who are aiming high aiming north thank you for your enthusiasm. this is what's going to make the difference. >> that's even a better way to end this conversation. thank you so much. thank you all. [ applause ]
2:52 am
this event looked at a study of the arctic region commissioned by secretary earnest moan ease. it included an energy department official and official from exxonmobile. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you so much. we are now going to turn to a discussion very much in keeping with senator murkowski's conversation about the need for economic growth and the importance of energy and resource development and we are going turn to a panel that i will tell you a secret all four of us on this panel have one thing in common, but i know one thing we have in common and that is we all participated in the
2:53 am
national petroleum council research study. i was just a supporting cast member on the subcommittee and the co-captains of the subcommittee are carol lloyd and paula grant from the department of energy. so what i will do is introduce the wonderful power panel and to talk a little bit about the study which was released on march 27th and i know carol has done the study and you may have never heard about it and we wanted to share with you this study and more importantly talk about a broader array and maybe go beyond the study and before i do that let me introduce the
2:54 am
wonderful and distinguished panel. dr. paula gant assistant secretary for oil and natural gas and the department of energy's office of fossil energy where she administers both domestic and international oil and gas programs. she previously worked at the american gas association at duke energy and she has a very impressive academic background. we have miss carol lloyd who is the engineering vice president at exxon mobil's upstream research company. she also has a long, distinguished career with the engineering manager at exxon oil and imperial oil and she is the smartest person on technology i have ever met. so if you have some real technical, write to her. write to her and finally to my right we have ms. drew pierce,
2:55 am
senior policy adviser for the environment and natural resources and government affairs group. drew is an alaskan and she has been secretary of interior on a -- adviser to two former secretary of the interior on a range of issues specifically with alaska affairs and she was appointed by the george w. bush's office coordinator in the office of the federal coordinator for alaska national gas transportation projects. that's a title. that's a mouthful, but drew is a legislator. she served for 17 years in the alaskan state legislature and she will help us in a very powerful perspective from the state of alaska. so we have some great slides. each of the panelists have a short presentation and we will begin with paula from the department of energy's perspective, turn to carol for the the industry perspective and drew's going to do cleanup and then we'll ask questions and welcome you into it so with that, again, thank you, paula,
2:56 am
the floor is yours. >> thanks, heather. it's a pleasure to be here today and thanks everyone for coming in from this beautiful spring day. i'm very pleased to see that spring has finally arrived in d.c. i think it was warmer in alaska when we were in juneau than it was in d.c. so it's a funny world. we are really thrilled to have the opportunity to talk about the arctic and alaska and our oil and gas resources here today. it's a very important moment in our history as we think about the arctic and we'll share a little bit of the administration's perspective and sort of where our head is right now on the arctic. i think many of you know because you're in the room here focused on the arctic that the president has set a national imperative for the u.s. to take a leadership role in ensuring stewardship of the arctic as set out in the national strategy for the arctic a couple of years ago and the following implementation plan.
2:57 am
our leadership and our presence in the region would be vital over the coming decade to ensuring continued u.s. leadership and in setting standards of behavior and norms of behavior and activity in the region and the -- as the climate changes and sea ice begins to be less prevalent in some areas we're seeing an increased amount of activity in the arctic and from a commercial perspective and the significant increase in shipping activity are from a military perspective with demonstrations of activity on other parts as well as an increased presence in other countries looking at opportunities even if they aren't arctic nations in the regions so there is tremendous opportunity for the united states to lead as this activity
2:58 am
increases and it's within this context that the secretary in 2013 that the national petroleum council conduct a study looking at what is the nature of the oil and gas resource in the arctic and what are the technologies and practices available and are needed to ensure that those resources are developed in a prudent manner and prudent encompasses as carol will talk through the results of the research work. prudent encompasses the idea that the resources are valuable and that developing them has national and energy security benefits must be developed in a manner that minimizes the negative impacts on other natural resources like our air and our land and our water as well as taking into account the benefits that can be accrued to
2:59 am
local communities that can contribute to the resource development. so it's -- that is the question or the request that the secretary made of the national petroleum council. carol, in a bit, is going to walk you through how the mpc responded to that request. i want to talk just for a couple of minutes and heather has admonished me to be brief. there's so much to talk about in this area that the secretary was very pleased to receive the results of the study as heather mentioned at the end of march and it's very timely, as many of you know the u.s. will assume the chairmanship of the arctic council in the next couple of weeks, actually, and we have an opportunity to work through our leadership of that council to ensure not only leadership in stewardship of the arctic environment, but also to find ways to enhance international
3:00 am
cooperation and through the arctic council we have demonstrated an ability to the cooperate internationally on science and technology and that really forms the core of the secretary's request. it's a question about what the science and technologies needed to ensure the prudent development of oil and gas resources and in particular what could the department of energy do to further advance science and technology. one of the key aspects of the recommendations that you'll hear about today is a recognition that in order to develop and realize the promise of oil and gas resources in the alaskan arctic that it will be vital to secure the public confidence that those resources can be developed in a responsible manner. in order to ensure that public confid


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on